American POW freed in prisoner swap. And the GOP doesn't like it.....

Oh really? They thought by creating this new scandal it would detract from the VA ordeal? Adding more controversy to the administration is a way to help them avoid controversy?

What a silly idea.

If any active military member is more upset by the U.S. getting an American POW out than by sending the troops in to a dangerous situation like Iraq without any valid reasons, then their priorities don't make any sense.

 

Interesting, because I see it as the the right treating every decision or action made by President Obama as the next step in his devious plan to destroy this county. Are the right just naive and gullible or are they just plain stupid???

Perception is a mf.

 

Not as stupid as people like you who just parrot what the Fox pundits feed you.

 

Sadly, I have repped you too recently or I would give you more for this one, great post.

 

1) You don't trade prisoners in an ongoing conflict for obvious reasons. Reasons I hope I'm wrong about but it's very likely that 1 or more of these guys will cause more bloodshed. These people want jihad. It's their purpose in life.

2) I'm not saying that they couldn't/shouldn't have more money but if the VA has enough money to give out bonuses for shady scheduling to fatten the numbers let's address the real problem of how to spend the money they do have before throwing more at it. The firings should be started by now IMO. (which has little to do in this thread other than military related).

3) Ill-advised period goes back from Bush Sr through today but the Afghan "conflict" was a result of 9-11 which us going over there was not ill-advised. I think some people have forgotten about that day already.

 

Nothing naive and gullible about this from the holders of the GOP strings. Using scandals to distract the common person from the substantive issues is a time-worn technique. It's brilliant politics, but it ruins our nation and society.

I've noticed that far-right people (not the average conservative) who espouse this discordant atmosphere are few in number, but very vociferous. Their ability to bray and bark is mistaken by the general audience for persuasive speech in spite of their insincere attitude and using misleading facts.

In this thread, 6 right-leaning posters made 40% of the posts out of roughly 100 people total. Unless they work at a PR firm whose services include planting cyberspace with disinformation and false up-votes/likes/thumbs up, they are spending a lot of energy without getting compensated.

 

The firings and resignations HAVE started, perhaps you didn't notice.

 

Your third point is another thread. The ill-advised period begins in the waning years of the Carter administration. I assume you liked the Reagan years given you started the bad times at 1989? There were policy reasons for 9/11 happening. Cold War policies from 1945 onwards which combined with developments in the Islamic World (or lack of 'developments') were the part of the attack's roots.

Also, the ongoing Afghan conflict is a separate issue from the initial 2 years which were justified. People haven't forgotten why we went there. It's the warhawks' supporters who have forgotten what Enduring Freedom and Anaconda accomplished. A counterattack =/= nation building.

 

Again - s/b different thread but I believe you are talking about the lone resignation. That guy got a nice going away package to go with his military retirement package...well played sir, well played...

Who has been fired?

 

If you want to take the 100,000' view then yes. But the crux of 9-11 was pigs living in their land which we did to support a no fly zone. We should have never had a no fly zone nor people over there after we moved Iraq out of Kuwait. That should have been the end of our involvement in the middle east.

 

Shinseki, the head of the VA, resigned.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/politics/va-hospitals-shinseki/

 

It's so nice to see this lib yank fest early in the morning. Keep at it gents.

 

State Dept Repeatedly Declines To Discuss ‘Specifics’ of Agreement Concerning Taliban Swap

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/127461" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...ry-good-reasons-not-give-details-taliban-deal

(CNSNews.com) – Amid reports that Qatar will allow five senior Taliban terrorists freed from Guantanamo Bay in the controversial Bergdahl exchange to move around freely, a State Department spokeswoman on Tuesday repeatedly declined to discuss “specifics” of the agreement struck with Qatar.

Marie Harf said the deal involved “very sensitive diplomatic negotiations” involving the Gulf state and there were “probably very good reasons” not to make the details public.

“As more details are able to be shared, we will,” she told a briefing. “But we as an administration looked at the agreement and certified – as we have in many other cases of Guantanamo detainees being sent home, both in this administration and last – that the threat had been mitigated.”

 

Errr... keep at it gents!

Bobbythegreat 107 posts
treeman 73 posts
bobmarley 48 posts

 

You won't find this on Fox of course and not in the mainstream media either, who are the minor cheer leaders for never ending war. If we don't learn from this the neo-cons/ military industrial complex will have us going into war in Africa or somewhere all too soon.

**********
Anand Gopal, author of No Good Men Among the Living: America, the Taliban, and the War through Afghan Eyes, points out that soon after American forces invaded Afghanistan, “there was no enemy to fight”:

By mid-2002 there was no insurgency in Afghanistan: al-Qaeda had fled the country and the Taliban had ceased to exist as a military movement. Jalaluddin Haqqani [whose “network” held Bergdahl captive] and other top Taliban figures were reaching out to the other side in an attempt to cut a deal and lay down their arms.

But, Gopal writes, “driven by the idée fixe that the world was rigidly divided into terrorist and non-terrorist camps, Washington allied with Afghan warlords and strongmen. Their enemies became ours, and through faulty intelligence, their feuds became repackaged as ‘counterterrorism.’”

When Haqqani, a celebrated freedom fighter during the Soviet war, turned down a deal from the Americans because it included detention, the U.S. military attacked his home province and other areas, killing his brother-in-law and innocent children.

If he wasn’t with the Americans, he was against them, and therefore it was open season.

In this whirlwind of cynicism and relativism, can anyone be blamed for wondering what the point of the war was?

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/05/sgt-bergdahl-and-the-fog-of-war/

 

Someone has to be a voice of reason on here.

 

It's so nice to see that I am completely correct about how snowed the Fauxbots are. Keep at it, sheep.

 

Self delusion is strong with this one.

Is this guy your friend?



This guy is:

Brandon Friedman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs for the Department of Housing and Urban Development

For someone who is not a fan of speculation, this guy sure takes the cake.

 

Good to see one of our boys home!